About your Search

20121226
20130103
STATION
CSPAN 23
LANGUAGE
English 23
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)
>> did the pentagon have review? >> no, didn't have fop once i'm retired from active due any i don't have to submit it to the pentagon unless i use classified information. so i avoided using any classified information but a lot of stuff was declassified right after the war. a lot of stuff was a matter of public record. so i had a great deal of material. the best thing i had was this, any war i ever fought most of instructions were sent by message back and forth. so you have hard copy record of every decision made. because of where we are today most of the orders and instructions are seventh back and forth by secured telephone. it became apparent that we're not going have a record of the decisions made unless we have a record ourselves. any time i had a conversation i wrote down what i said and what is being said to me. i had someone in there who would write down every time i made a decision and he would log it into a private journal that we kept of every decision that was happening during the war. if it had not been through that the book would not be written. >> where are those 3,0
the wall street journal, or the pentagon indicated they wanted to maintain 6000 to 15th thousand u.s. troops following 2014. that is the issue under discussion now. there's approximately around 340 0,000 afghan security forces in place, including the police. the pentagon recently indicated i don't believe there was a major unit capable of operating independently from nato support. there was some manipulation of the metrics they were using where the things appear to be making more progress than perhaps they were. that came out in a white paper. what will be the long term success or failure of the afghan national security forces is yet to be determined. they need about $4.1 billion a year to continue at that level, which is more than the entire government revenues in afghanistan. so it's gone to take a long-term commitment of foreign powers to maintain that size of armed forces. the afghans have proven that they are excellent fighters. the question is will they be excellent soldiers for the government of afghanistan? host: one other question, how stable do you think the karzai govern
pentagon budget issues coming up. so there's some talk about him wanting to hang on and try to manage the budget issues that are going to hit the pentagon over the next few months. host: we're taking your calls with david jackson, the white house reporter for u.s.a. today. first up is doug from oklahoma on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i had a question about geithner. hadn't he said something earlier about wanting to leave? guest: that's correct. host: around the inauguration was the quote. host: how would you feel about geithner leaving? do you want him to go as a democrat? caller: that's a good question. no. no. guest: the caller is right. geithner has said publicly he wants to leave around the nomination. but with the uncertainty, i don't think the administration would want him to leave as long as these issues are hanging. so we get a fiscal cliff this deal and i think he's going to be gone by the end of the month but i think it's kind of up t in the air. host: says a contender for his job would be jack lew. guest: that's the betting money. is his job if
their budgets cut, depending whether it the pentagon or other agencies. the agencies can try to shield some programs for others. social security benefits are not going to be cut. the pay for pentagon officials is not going to be cut. if this drags on into march or april, they will have to do furloughs, is essentially giving people vacations. host: the headline from "the wall street journal." is that one way to do that? guest: that is a painful way to do that. when people do not have money to spend, the economy is not going to grow. if this goes on for a couple of days and the stock market falls dramatically, congress and the white house may be able to avoid some of the long-term consequences. if everybody digs end, more disasters things could take hold. host: the president, vice president, speaker of the house, democratic leader of the house, will be meeting today. from the reporting you have done, what will be happening? guest: they could sit down and cut a deal in five minutes. they know all the issues. they know where their parties are. they could sit down in five minutes, shaking hands,
especially to are very upset with the cuts that would hit the pentagon. it may be difficult to rally republican votes if they cannot turn off the sequester. on the democratic side, the estate tax could be a problem. the republicans are insisting that the estate tax stay at current levels, which is exempt states up to $5 million. many democrats would like to see -- in january, it is scheduled to come -- it is scheduled to go up dramatically. on states as small as a million dollars would be taxed. most democrats want to see something in the middle. they're adamant that we cannot exempt states as large as $5 million. that could be another sticking point. >> lori montgomery, to expect anything else to go on today? when is the earliest that the senators will come back in for session tomorrow? >> the senate is due back in at 1:00. the house is due at 6:30. the house is the big question mark. it is very difficult to imagine what could pass the house. as for today, it is an excellent question. the senate is not in, the house is not in. my understanding is we're going to have basically everyo
they go to washington, it is not a philanthropic act on the pentagon's part to instruct boeing to build. it is pragmatic. the united states federal government -- unless europe is dollarized, unless they do not have dollars to spend purchasing the net exports of those who have surpluses, then they will stop having surplus. this is the surplus recycling mechanism. thus, we have the 20 years of the golden age. the 1950's and the 1960's. a period of immense stability very low inflation. universal growth. we had other problems. the lease from the macroeconomic point of view, it was a golden age. why did it end? because the global surplus of recycling mechanism could no longer be sustained. why? because the united states stopped having a surplus by the end of the 1960's. how can you recycle surplus if you cannot have it. enter a young turk in 1971. well, paul volcker -- that name may ring a bell. in 1971, paul volcker was an unknown working for another american. henry kissinger, who you may have heard of. before he became secretary of state. he was still national security advisor. volcker's p
. that became more and more until the publication of "the pentagon papers." that was a gradual growth come a difference, between the media the new york times" and the administration, and that continues until the state. there is an oscillation between the administration and "the times" depending on the administration. that difference opened up cordially there, and it continued to. the skepticism to the vietnam war, and watergate, which is mostly "washington post" storage, increased trade gradually we have what we have today, an adversarial right fox, adversarial left, msnbc, and cnn, which is trying to be "the new york times," when nobody wants to see a non- adversarial. "the times" is a two-section newspaper, a term that "the times" does not like any more. the editor -- when you use in it, they get a little bit squeamish. some of you i should probably it, one of my sources -- took a great deal of reading the, and interviews. "the times" is generous in giving me access, letting the interview them. mostly, i got this through approaching them and asking them, and one led to the other. approa
. by contrast, the international affairs budget is less than one-tenth of the pentagon's. secretary gates has spoken about this and strongly urged the congress to address that imbalance. we have not yet. admiral mullen pointed out, the more diplomacy is cut, the more lives are lost. we have to make certain that we are not penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to supporting americas vital overseas interests. adequately funding foreign-policy initiatives is not spending, but investing in our long-term security, and more often or not, it saves far more expensive expenditures in dollars and lives in the conflicts that we fail to see or avoid. we need to invest in america's long-term interest in order to do the job of diplomacy in a dangerous world. this report makes that crystal clear. since 1985, i have had the privilege of making official journeys to one trouble spot or another. i have met a lot of our men and women in the foreign services. we sat and talked about the work they do and the lives that they lead. they spent years learning the languages of the country so they can be on the fro
is a couple mission of the pentagon to it that was a andual i'll live to milan in administration. but it does not interest otters up continually there. this skepticism for the vietnam war and watergate which is mostly the washington post dory increased. the press became adversarial and maybe it will we have to have men ever serial left at have one cnn which is kind of trying to be the new york times and people are talking abut that people are not adversarial news. the stock above the neck down is it to section the newspaper. i notice the public editor who has probably talk to the look less people less times that i have have said, the day's paper is the granddaddy best friend of nuclear plant. the individual was get a little bit squeamish. some of you think i should say where are my sources. the book was a great deal of reading, i also was a very temperance and times of generous and giving me access. as one person or any view and expect to be. 1999-201. . all of the executive editress. by the time we were involved in this process a tentative before -- 1834 was a secondary investing. >> it does
automatic, across-the-board spending cuts to the pentagon and domestic spending. we are getting your take on that this morning with our coverage on a "washington journal." here is what the majority leader harry reid had to say earlier this morning before the vote. >> working through the night and throughout the day, we have reached a deal with senator mcconnell to avert tax increases on middle class americans. i have said all along to our most important priority is to protect middle-class families. this legislation does that. middle-class families will wake up to date to the assurance that their taxes will not go up -- today to the assurance that the taxes will not go up $2,200 each. they will have the certainty to pay for groceries and car payments on next year. legislation protects 2 million americans lost their jobs during the great recession, losing their unemployment insurance. i'm disappointed that we were not able to make a grand bargain as we have for so long, but we tried. host: here is the headline in "the washington times." -- late into new year's eve, the criticism from the le
who are very upset with the cuts that would hit the pentagon. it may be difficult to rally republican votes of the cannot turn off the sequester. on the democratic side, the estate tax could be a problem. the republicans are insistent that the estate tax stay at current levels, which is exempting the state of $55 million at a relatively late 35% above that level. many democrats would like to see -- in january it is expected to come -- taxes are expected to go up dramatically. as small as $1 million would be taxed. most democrats want to see something in the metal. they are adamant that we cannot exempt states as large as $5 million. that could be another sticking point. >> do we expect anything going on today? if not, what is the earliest of the senators will come back in for session tomorrow? caller: i think the senate is due back in at 1:00. the house is due at 6:30. the house is the big question mark here. it is very difficult to imagine what could pass the house. as for today, that is an excellent question. the senate is not in here the house is not an. my understanding as we are
, it is not a philanthropic act on the pentagon's part to instruct boeing to build. -- to build in the deficit areas of the u.s. it is pragmatic. the united states federal government -- unless europe is dollarized, unless they do not have dollars to spend purchasing -- unless those who do not have dollars are given dollars to spend purchasing, the net exports of those who have surpluses, then they will stop having surplus. this is the surplus recycling mechanism. thus, we have the 20 years of the golden age. the 1950's and the 1960's. a period of immense stability very low inflation. very low unemployment. universal growth. we had other problems. the lease from the macroeconomic point of view, it was a golden age. why did it end? because the global surplus of recycling mechanism could no longer be sustained. why? because the united states stopped having a surplus by the end of the 1960's. how can you recycle surplus if you cannot have it. -- if you do not have it? enter a young turk in 1971. actually, he was the american, but you know what i mean. well, paul volcker -- that name may ring a bell. in 1971, pau
, so do have the debt ceiling fight coming up. when you say that it faces and, you expect the pentagon to say we would just hold everything? certainly years, serving months ahead of time. they have to plan on how many people to have in their workforce -- in the force, recruiting. you cannot turn on a dime, like a huge oil tanker. >> john, we will focus on folks that we did not know who are here. we will come right back. don't go away. take five minutes. >> this is just -- >> we saw senators mccain and 11 decide they will come back in a couple of minutes. as we wait, back to something that took place earlier this morning outside the capital. -- the capitol. >> i want to thank you for being here to call on house republicans not to drop the ball on the middle-class. also for the house to show up for work, right? the president is down at the white house, senator harkin and his colleagues are here. they are out on a paid vacation right now. boehner walked out of the allegations with the present and then he walked out of the house and tell all members to go home while we are four days away f
obligations. it's working for pentagon contractors, for oil companies, for coal companies. it's for those who want to hold down wages and suppress the rights of workers. it's working for the drug companies who sweet our deal on the prescription drugs and blew the hole in the medicare budget. this masks the reality that the fax resources of government increasingly are going to the highest bidders and a $4 billion national election. the debris at the bottom of the fiscal cliff will be the hopes of doctors of medicare patients, unemployed workers, middle class taxpayers who can't pay any more. our nation pose that the fiscal cliff is proof of the necessity of a constitutional amendment. h.j.res. 100, to rid this nation of the corrupting influence of special interest money with public financing which re-creates a true government of the people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: witho
that? and i want to say a word about sequestration. sequestration is about to kick in. the pentagon and our defense department is like a giant oil tanker. you got to turn it around in a very difficult and slow manner, because they have to make plans and they have to have contingencies -- procurement of weapons, have to do all the things that are necessary to make sure our men and women who are serving in the military are the best trained, best equipped and most professional in the world, which they are. but we're looking at sequestration here when the department of defense says it will decimate our adilt -- ability to defend this nation. shouldn't the president of the united states be concerned about that? but what is his own secretary of defense is saying and what his own chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, his selection, is saying. instead, we kind of joke around and tell people they're going to be here fear new year's eve. that's not the way to lead this nation. so i come to the floor and say to my colleagues, we need to get this done. we all know that we need to get this done
with the cuts that would hit the pentagon. it may be difficult to rally republican votes if they cannot turn off the sequester. and the democratic side, the estate tax could be a problem. republicans are insisting that the estate tax stay at current .evels, which is exemp many democrats would like to see -- in january, it is scheduled to go up automaticalldramatically. most democrats want to see something in the middle. they are adamant that we cannot exempt states as large as $5 million. >> lori montgomery, do we expect anything going on today, and if not, when is the earliest the senators will come back and recession tomorrow? >> the senate is due back in at 1:00. the house is due in at 6:30. the house is the big question mark here. as for today, it is an excellent question. the senate is not in. the house is not in. my understanding is we're going to have basically everyone working quietly to see if we can reach an agreement co. i will be interesting to see if they give us any information today. >> lori montgomery of the "washington post." find her articles at wp.com. >> both chambers of cong
that i do not view this as the fall of the pentagon, but rather, an indication that the department of defense has insufficient assets to respond to attacks at this time -- of this type. let me comment on the administration's response to the attacks. this was so obviously a terrorist attack that i remain perplexed that the administration's officials gave such conflicting responses to questions from reporters about whether or not it was a terrorist attack. this was clearly not a peaceful protest that somehow got out of hand and evolved into a violent attack. instead, it clearly was a terrorist attack. and this, unfortunately, has been typical of what the committee has found over the last few years in our investigations of radical islamic extremism and the threat of the perversion of a peaceful religion practiced by the vast majority of muslims. the threat of the perversion of that etiology to attack our country remains a great threat. and yet, the administration repeatedly has refused to name the threat that we have faced. it was evident in the department of all land security -- home
Search Results 0 to 22 of about 23 (some duplicates have been removed)